Elmassian v. Flores (2021)

Citation: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Parent Document: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5291317/elmassian-v-flores/ ↗

Full Text

1,961 chars

20
was a victim of domestic violence,” further necessitating the filing of a report or documentation
as to each instance of violence relied on by a landlord would add a requirement not listed in the
statute.17
Any ambiguity is resolved by examining the statute’s legislative history. The most
recent amendment to the statute added the qualified third-party statement concerning the abuse
as a documentation option (§ 1161.3, subd. (a)(1)(C); see Stats. 2018, ch. 190). The Legislature
considered that the documentation requirement was included as a prerequisite to using the
defense as a way, “[t]o prevent unscrupulous tenants from merely pretending to be crime
victims.” (Sen. Judiciary Com., Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2413 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) as
amended June 11, 2018, p. 7.) It was noted that, pursuant to the requirements of section
1161.3, “the tenant must have a temporary restraining order, protective order, or police report.
In other words, the tenant must interact with law enforcement,” and the third-party statement
was added as an option because “tenants may have legitimate reasons for avoiding contact with
law enforcement.” (Id. at p. 8.)
The intent of requiring documentation was to forestall “unscrupulous tenants” from
making up domestic violence to defend evictions, and to make it easier for victims to be on
record as having been victimized. Requiring a victim to secure a detailed report naming the
perpetrator and his relationship to her would be inimical to the Legislature’s goals. Moreover,
since the intent was simply to have the tenant be on record as being a victim, requiring
documentation of multiple instances of violence would add burdens on victims not
contemplated by the statute.
Substantial Evidence Supporting the Defense
Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action was based on defendant having maintained,
permitted, and/or committed a nuisance. (§ 1161, subd. (4).) As noted in the three-day notice

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text